The very interesting DC Bar Ethics Report as to Jeffrey Clark

When your peers take you to the woodshed perhaps you should reconsider: being Trump’s Fan Boi, Enroll in 170+ hours of CLE and maybe just speed dial the DOJ begging them for a Queen for the Day

I said what I said in October 2021…

…because I had facts on my side & documents to support said facts. At this point I am comfortable in saying, if I made a prediction, I either caveat it with a speculation alert or I say what I say because the facts support said assertion. Which is why the cadre of conspiracy theorist truly make my left eye twitch. I can not and will not ever traffic in “conspiracy theories” largely because I don’t want to beckown myself. Lastly just because someone can accurately predict what will happen —that doesn’t mean said prediction is wrong, it simply means “gold star for you for catching up” (please note my dripping sarcasm) my employer thinks my ability to accurately predict actions and reactions is part of my magical superpowers. Nope it just means I’m able to quickly digest a crushing anoint of data, I then store that in my mind vault and I’m able to see how dots don’t just connect but the dots are generally interconnected. Yet somehow even I read Clark’s responses and said: what in the freshest of fresh hells is this madness.

I do not regret my previous predictions, at all

If you were to ask me; do you regret what you said about Jeffrey Clark in October 2021? My answer remains the same: Hell NO I regret nothing because it’s almost like I might actually know a thing or two. In addition to making an informed prediction, unlike most in October of 2021 I was sitting in my quite Substack corner silently screaming into the abyss. Shall we quickly review because I have the receipts and a lot of them. Not that this matters but I’d like the public record to reflect that it would be a supremely assoholic thing to say something like: must I once again prove that nearly one year ago, I tried to help my readers understand the arch, the scope, the criminal peril and Bar issues that Jeffrey Clark would face, especially pointing out the growing concern the DC Bar Ethics panel would likely under take? (Yes I’m being momentarily whiney because some Blue-QANON jackholes had the flaccid nuts to say I was wrong and that I didn’t know what I was talking about) it’s so weird that given enough time, other people can figure out who’s right or wrong….

Groundhog Day; wash, rinse & repeat, let’s first establish the factual framework

Here’s the bottom line; I said what I said because (because I had facts & documents on my side); 1) I read the whole damn 400+ pages, 2) I also hundreds of pages of depo transcripts, 3) I do this shit for a living and 4) I can only recall two occasions where I was flat out wrong (Flynn’s sentencing and Flynn blowing up his plea agreement but I did say that could be a possibility…)

• On October 7, 2021 I shared with my readers, that the Senate Judiciary Chairman (and the Committee writ large) had sent an Ethics Complaint/Referral to the DC Bar concerning Jeffrey Clark’s flagrant violations of the Professional Rules of Conduct.

  • I literally laid it out and rhetorical asked why Meadows and Clark haven’t been indicted

  • I provided dozens of links which largely comprised the underlying documents of the Senate Committee’s 400+ page report

  • Senate Judiciary Committee today released new testimony and a staff report

• June/ July 2022: Jeffrey Clark now facing an ethics panel complaint, he could be disbarred. Emphasize on “could be” —Turns out “misleading” and amplifying “alternative electors” is in fact super unethical.

• No really I’ve written at least a dozen articles concerning Jeffrey Clark —I mean even in July 2021 I noted just how perilous Clark’s actions were. Remember at the time the House had yet to establish the HSCJ6 —which is why I watched the House Oversight & Judicary Committee like a hawk;

  • See August 2021 HSCJ6 request to Clark

  • See November 2021 HSCI document dump concerning Clark

  • See December 2021 House Oversight Report

So yes occasionally I get frustrated when I know certain people have said I was wrong, yet with the passage of time it only proves they —themselves were wrong but then again what would you expect from the Cadre of “faux” experts that seem to have grifted their way into notoriety. Okay now that I got that off my chest, let’s actually drill down on the September 12, 2022 (it was published on September 13, 2022) and unless otherwise specified —the provenance of the docket discussed herein come directly from: https://www.dcbar.org

Moreover in the past I’ve written extensively about the Oath an attorney takes when they are admitted in to a local Bar (swear to baby cheesejesus I’m not talking about a Bar where you go to get “naked wasted”) you can read more here or you can reread the July 2021 article concerning the DC Bar’s contemplation and adjudication of the credible ethics complaint. Back in June Clark filed a response (that’s what the DC Bar September 12th Report cited) where Clark proffered the potential criminal charges he might face:

“…approximately a dozen armed agents of the Department of Justice’s Office of Inspector General executed a criminal search warrant at [Mr. Clark’s] home at around 7 a.m. and seized his electronic devices”

Clark closed that response by reiterating his previous argument that the DC Bar can not initiate disciplinary actions against him because he was doing his job at the DOJ —which is odd because Clark didn’t argue sovereign immunity —no he argued a subsection of federal law. I’d argue Clark’s interpretations of said federal law isn’t just wrong, it’s hilariously wrong. The DC bar had previously rejected Clark’s Defenses but undeterred Clark quadruple down some 79 days later.

Respondent Clark requested ALL DC Bar proceedings to be under seal…

Before we analyze the recent DC Bar Report on Clark’s ethics complaint. I would like to point out that Clark had requested that ALL documents pertaining to the current ethics complaint be placed under seal, page 2, first paragraph, last sentence… Clark’s request was adjudicated on September 2, 2022, see Order

Jeffrey Clark’s September 8, 2022 redacted response…

I am fairly certain that both of my children, in particular my youngest could have written a far more persuasive argument. For Example, my nine year old knows that the POTUS may make appointments “with the advise and consent of the Senate” —Sidenote- Trump nominated Clark on January 8, 2018 see Senate PAS Nomination PN1407 — on October 11, 2018 Clarke was Confirmed by the Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 52 - 45. Record Vote Number: 228. But in reading Clark’s response —assuming arguendo Clark truly believes what he’s arguing in his responsive pleadings… OH. DEAR. GOD. how the hell did Clark pass the Bar Exam.

…attempting to assert jurisdiction over Respondent’s conduct as alleged in the Charges would intrude on the President’s exclusive and unreviewable authority over federal criminal and civil investigations occurring during his term of office, pursuant to the Take Care Clause and as such authority is delegated by the President consistent with the U.S. Department of Justice power structure established in 28 U.S.C. § 506.

And if you thought that the deep stupid could not possibly become deeper —oh yes it can. In Clark’s Response —specifically regarding a January 3, 2021 Oval Office Meeting that he purportedly was “the acting Attorney General…even though that later changed” —what in the freshest of all fresh hells is Clark thinking by including that in his responses?

…Note as well that the House Select Committee on January 6 presented evidence that at the time an Oval Office meeting is said to have commenced on January 3, 2022, Respondent was then the Acting Attorney General of the United States, even though that later changed….

And just when you think it can’t possibly any more stupid —Jeffrey Clark essentially says “hold my beer” because under his seventh defendant, Clark asserts that Donald Trump —the fact that Clark genuinely believes Trump is “the chiefs law enforcement officer” and that he is duty bound pursuant to the “take care clause” is one of the most asinine word salads I’ve ever encountered in the wild —however read this particular footnote closely. It most certainly infers that Clark’s former DOJ bosses (may) have appeared before the DC Bar, specifically the Board currently adjudicating the Ethics Complaint. And it’s very likely Rosen Donoghue both provided sworn testimony —which is largely affirmed because Clark notes the DC Bar has yet to provide him with a transcript or any other communications concerning the testimony of his former bosses

Clark is a target in multiple ongoing criminal investigations.

• -cough Conspiracy to Defraud the Union States of America

• -cough Fake Electors Scheme

• -cough Conspired to Obstruct an Official Government Proceeding

• -cough lying and/or misleading investigators

• -cough Conspiracy to commit Wire Fraud

I do think it’s worthwhile to re-explain just how serious and perilous the situation is for Jeffrey Clark: he’s the target of at least two DOJ investigations, he’s also the primary target of an DOJ-OIG investigation (you have to watch the embedded CNN video), a target in the Fulton County DA’s special grand jury, read more here and more recently here —also I’m going to gently remind you that Fulton County DA’s Special Grand jury can not hand down a ‘true bill’ aka indictment. DA Willis will have to go to a regular grand jury, assuming arguendo that the evidence supports an indictment. As further articulated on page 1:

Jeffrey Clark requested a “deferral” from the DC Bar…

A few months ago I drilled down on the Ethics Complaint currently under review by the DC Bar (you can read more here) Because State Bars adhere to the due process, which are governed by the local ANBar’s rules of professional conduct. Thusly pursuant to DC Bar Rule 4.2 Deferral Under Board (see District of Columbia Bar Rules of Professional Conduct ...) additionally the DC Bar Report is heavily redacted which reads in part:

may request deferral of a disciplinary case based upon the pendency of either a related ongoing criminal investigation or related pending criminal or civil litigation.

Clark requested a “deferral” and his request was denied pursuant to the following language articulated in DC Bar Rule 4.2 AND Rule 4.1 which the Board reads together when contemplating a “deferral request” —I’ve put the relevant passage in bold font —Rule 4.1 requires the following:

Whispers: Bar Disciplinary proceedings are not the same as a Court proceeding

While most might not understand why a local Bar has different rules governing the process of an Ethic’s Board review of a credible ethics complaint. The easiest way I can explain this in non-legalese; as an Officer of the Court, that attorney is bound by the local Bar’s Rules of Professional Conduct (some local Bars use the synonym term “canons of Conduct” —generally speaking Canons and Rules are typical synonymous and are often used interchangeably.In short when you, as an attorney, raise your right hand and place your left hand on a Bible (or Koran) your oath as an “Officer of the Court” means you are now duty bound to adhere to all local Bar Rules (especially the Rules of Conduct) —see DC Bar Rules of Professional Conduct (it shouldn’t be walled off) but then again I used my login to access both the Rules and Clatk’s disciplinary proceedings. If per chance that link is walled off —thus requiring a DC Bar account -please let me know because I can quickly upload the 700+ page rule book to a public drive

Chair of the Hearing Committee considers appropriate within five days of receipt of any opposition to an application for deferral or five days after the date such opposition was due. The Board Chair shall rule on the motion after evaluating the pleadings and recommendation under the standards in Rule 4.1.

Board Rule 4.1 provides that —Before a petition has been filed, a Contact Member may approve a request by Disciplinary Counsel for deferral based upon the pendency of a related ongoing criminal or disciplinary investigation or upon related pending criminal or civil litigation when there is a substantial likelihood that the resolution of the related investigation or litigation will help to resolve material issues involved in the pending disciplinary matter.

Clark failed to make ANY showing of; “substantially likely”

After careful and thoughtful consideration, (side note a few months ago I pointed out for a short period of time Clark’s license/bar status was “inactive”)… and generally speaking I attempt to not criticize most attorneys. But when it comes to attorneys like Jeffrey Clark (and the vast majority of the ones Trump has hired) I’m not only going to judge them, I’ll likely excoriate their arguments —because I can and so I do (snort)

Holy Shittlestix DC Bar took Clark to the woodshed…

Generally speaking Local Bar proceedings are highly cautious. But with respect to Jeffrey Clark’s “lawyering” OH. DEAR. GOD. setting aside Clark’s ineptitude to accurately cite case law—his main argument is about the most absurd and mind blowing argument an attorney could make. He literally argued that DOJ attorneys are not bound by the Local Bar’s Rules of Professional conduct. If you think I might be slightly over dramatic. I regret to inform you that I am not. I now refer you page 7…

“harbored any scienter to act in a dishonest fashion for self gain or to achieve an illicit objective for former President Trump.”

Clark should genuinely renew his WestLaw CAL or think about changing his career because his various responsive filings are some of the worst written and illogical arguments I’ve read in a long time

Again to help you better ascertain the DC Bar ethics complaint of Jeffrey Clark I went ahead and uploaded the filings to my Scribd Account —because you might be required to log in to your DC Bar account —to view the Share:point file.but I’ve embedded the September 12th report below

DC Bar Complaint Jeffrey Clark Sept 12th Report.. to be clear the report largely and solely addresses Clark’s “deferral” request not the meat and potatoes of the ethics complaint.

And certainly Jeffrey Clark has my thoughts and prayers as it’s obvious he is about to go through some things, perhaps a veritable cornucopia of “things”

In the meantime here’s your daily saltwater video therapy…

file411_dc

A post shared by File411 (@file411_dc)

…unless any urgent breaking news occurs —I am going to take a long weekend, I mean it this time. Because this week was extraordinarily stressful and exhausting. Also ProTip if you are required to travel for work post-pandemic if you suddenly cough really loud while sneezing that tends to make people scatter and then you can enjoy (albeit the turbulence over New Jersey sucked) you flight home without the person next to you thinking they can sleep on your shoulder. Shortly before midnight last night I returned to my home and I swear I used our mud room as a decontamination zone and took one of the longest showers I’ve taken in recent memory.

Only then did I receive an (unsolicited) information that apparently I’m still living in people’s heads on Twitter. Keep in mind these are the same individual who’ve made baseless and incongruent conspiracies about me, my siblings and others that I interacted with on Twitter —Someone should ask this person if they still stand behind the fallacious thread that Firtash was cooperating with the Government to take Trump down (whispers of course that insane conspiracy theory was never true) but my GOD it’s been nearly four years since I warned my then twitter followers to stay the hell away from this person because they exhibited signs of being mentally unwell and possibly unstable.

Yet said person (who’s clearly working with several other deranged individuals-cough as in an actual conspiracy) continues to bring up my family in their derange conspiracy theories. Here’s a challenge; provide any proof that I was ever employed by Louise. —spoiler you can’t because there is no proof as there was never such employment arrangement. But I’m super glad you unceremoniously gave me a promotion.

Seriously are you itching for a complete disbarment? Do you want a summary judgment? (whispers you have exactly zero assets, you are broke and you are defunct unemployed and unemployable) Or are you that mentally unwell that you are compelled to create threads that have zero basis in fact.

I genuinely mean this, I think you should go seek serious professional help forthwith. In my opinion, your delusions use to be comical but over time they have crossed the rubicon of crazy with a capital C. In some respects I actually feel sorry for you, it has to be that exhausting to be that bitter and obsessed. Conversely in other respects I’m done turning the other cheek. Given the source of some of your information comes from a person who cheated on their spouse after they stole money from them and then when their would be paramour didn’t deliver on the blissful extramarital affair said person took to Twitter (for a years long harassment and stalking campaign) -I should stop before I write something I might later regret

Unfortunately, for now I have to getting ready for a red team call which starts in about two minutes. Wishing you a restful weekend. Be Well -Filey